Any of those who were on the other side of that argument are now free to admit that they were wrong.

ATTN Liberals that were arguing on the other side. Ody is being rhetorical. He doesn't really expect you to come in and post. He wants you to but he knows you won't.

Same as that lack of doctors thread I started. I don't really expect you to go in and argue your point. Liberals post lies, get called on it, are shown the truth and then are never heard from again until it's time to tell another lie in another thread.

It's so tedious and predictable. Just like Barry.

02-22-2013, 11:21 PM

Novaheart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odysseus

In several threads, I argued that the redefinition of marriage would result in confusion over its nature, and end up leading to legal sanction of polygamy. I did not argue that it would lead to sanction of incest, but others did. We were derided as delusional paranoid bigots, and our arguments were not addressed on their merits. Now, a story coming out of Germany shows that the fight for gay marriage is leading to an advocacy of adoption rights for polygamous groupings, and the destigmatization of incest.

Any of those who were on the other side of that argument are now free to admit that they were wrong.

They have Mormons in Germany?

02-22-2013, 11:33 PM

Novaheart

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaGator

There are already arguments being made (though on a small scale) here in the U.S. for the acceptance of polygamous and incestual relationships using the acceptance of same-sex marriage as they basis of their argument. Parts of Europe have abolished the penalties for bestiality.

It's interesting that when gay rights groups invoke Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage) they are told that the one has nothing to do with the other. But when some fringe group is attributed to have used gay rights as a supportive principle then the relationship is unquestioned.

The issue of legal incest and how it is defined has been in play for 2000 years. Egyptians married siblings and Romans didn't. By the 14th century the Pope (back when anyone cared) decreed that incest was marriage within the sixth degree. IN some states first cousin marriage is legal but double first cousin marriage is illegal. IN Utah first cousins can marry, but only if the female is past child bearing years.

I wonder how the offspring of serial single mothers know they aren't marrying a sibling. I have to wonder if it matters given the random rutting of those who went west in the 19th century.

02-22-2013, 11:40 PM

Rockntractor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novaheart

They have Mormons in Germany?

In 1996 President Gordon B. Hinckley held a regional conference in Berlin as part of a five- nation European tour. At the beginning of the year 2000 Germany had 36,303 members living in 14 stakes and 188 wards and branches.

It's interesting that when gay rights groups invoke Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage) they are told that the one has nothing to do with the other. But when some fringe group is attributed to have used gay rights as a supportive principle then the relationship is unquestioned.

As pointed out, the Greens are not a fringe group, they are one of the largest political parties in Germany, and have affiliates throughout the world. Second, The state of Virginia's arguments in Loving vs. VA were based on discredited theories of biological racial differences. When you have discredited the theories that there are significant biological differences between men and women, or that incestuous couplings produce all manner of genetic abnormalities, we will be more than happy to give those arguments a fair hearing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novaheart

The issue of legal incest and how it is defined has been in play for 2000 years. Egyptians married siblings and Romans didn't. By the 14th century the Pope (back when anyone cared) decreed that incest was marriage within the sixth degree. IN some states first cousin marriage is legal but double first cousin marriage is illegal. IN Utah first cousins can marry, but only if the female is past child bearing years.

I wonder how the offspring of serial single mothers know they aren't marrying a sibling. I have to wonder if it matters given the random rutting of those who went west in the 19th century.

So, you're okay with incest? Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novaheart

They have Mormons in Germany?

They may, but it isn't Mormons who are lobbying for polygamous relationships, it's Muslims and leftists.

02-23-2013, 05:42 PM

Rockntractor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odysseus

They may, but it isn't Mormons who are lobbying for polygamous relationships, it's Muslims and leftists.

It is easy to see how suicide bombing could be an option for a Muslim with multiple wives.

I have been alone all day with one.

02-24-2013, 12:45 AM

NJCardFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odysseus

So, you're okay with incest? Seriously?

Well, he is the one who says there is no difference between adults and children biologically hence what NAMBLA wants is normal so this really isn't much of a stretch.

02-24-2013, 01:38 AM

Novaheart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odysseus

So, you're okay with incest? Seriously?

Merely pointing out that it has been legal at one time for siblings (and other close relations) to marry, and illegal at other times for fifth cousins to wed. By traditional definitions, you and I by virtue of living in Virginia and Florida are 'okay with incest'. My great great grandfather's first wife died in childbirth and he then married her sister. That's incest in Scotland.

Of course none of this has anything to do with gay people getting married, but that apparently doesn't matter.

02-24-2013, 01:40 AM

Novaheart

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJCardFan

Well, he is the one who says there is no difference between adults and children biologically hence what NAMBLA wants is normal so this really isn't much of a stretch.

You're a liar. But that's ok. If Rock has his way you'll get stripped of your benefits and retirement and have your wages cut to $8/hr.

02-24-2013, 02:11 AM

Odysseus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Merely pointing out that it has been legal at one time for siblings (and other close relations) to marry, and illegal at other times for fifth cousins to wed. By traditional definitions, you and I by virtue of living in Virginia and Florida are 'okay with incest'. My great great grandfather's first wife died in childbirth and he then married her sister. That's incest in Scotland.

Of course none of this has anything to do with gay people getting married, but that apparently doesn't matter.

Nice straw men. First, pointing out that incest has been legal for siblings in some cultures in this context implies acceptance of the practice. Notice that you have not stated that you oppose it. Second, the issue, as I keep telling you, is that when you radically redefine marriage based on the whims of the moment, you open the floodgates to all manner of new definitions of "marriage", from gay marriage to polygamy to incest. If two men can marry, and adopt, or two women, why not a man and two women? Or three? Or four? Why not have communal adoptions? After all, the Mansons called themselves a family, too. You keep moving the goalposts to where you want them, but you aren't the only one who wants to move them, and the others have no compunctions about knocking them down entirely.